<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Classically-Verifiable Quantum Advantage from a Computational Bell Test · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00687/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00687/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Classically-Verifiable Quantum Advantage from a Computational Bell Test — mentioned by qnleigh</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42380592</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2104.00687:42380592</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:40:32 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I would add one more to this, which I would argue is the main reason: (0) For a quantum algorithm/simulation to be classically verifiable, it needs additional structure; something that leads to a structured, verifiable output despite the intermediate steps being intractable to simulate classically. That additional structure necessarily adds complexity beyond what can be run on current devices. To pick an arbitrary example I&amp;#x27;m familiar with, this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00687) relies on the quantum computer implementing a certain cryptographic hash function. This alone makes the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2104.00687/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
